Threesome and Lesbian Scene Trash

[optimus]

Merit??? Waaiiiiihhhhh....you're just mad that I'm making more sense than you are.

[Michael Pajaro]

We're starting to get into the name-calling and personal attacks again...

With all this discussion about whether or not the new Knight Rider is appropriate for children, you'd think it could be debated like adults.

[PHOENIXZERO]

I liked the KR related advertisements, they were funny... I just wasn't too thrilled with the camera shots during the movie that focused on the cars' emblems.

[daroga]

Morally I'm against the promiscuity / homosexuality as well.

However, my beef with both scenes is that they were completely gratuitous and unnecessary. As a KR fan, I'd have much preferred the pointless lesbian scene to be replaced by a few lines of dialogue talking about the original KITT.

[KFCreator]

I consider myself a "moral" person and I didn't have any problem whatsoever with either scene. I have a best friend who is a homosexual and I see nothing wrong with that. I don't view homosexuality as immoral in any way because it is something that has been shown to occur in other species and it has been documented to occur in human civilizations as far back as ancient Egypt. To me, homosexuality is a natural part of life. To each his (or her) own, I say. But I digress...

Let's step back a bit and first off remember that this is an action adventure TV show that NBC made clear over and over again leading up to the premiere as being targeted for the 18-49 age group. That automatically right there meant it very well could have unsuitable content for younger viewers. Also, if anyone had paid any attention to the interviews with the actors/writers/producers that have been posted here on KRO for the last several weeks, they would have seen in those interviews that it was publicly stated that the character of Agent Rivaii was going to be lesbian. The scene with Mike and the 2 women wasn't announced prior but again, the first thing that popped up on the screen was that nice MPAA rating that said TV14 SVL, indicating again, unsuitable content for younger viewers.

I can understand wanting to watch Knight Rider with your own children because this is the show you grew up with and back then it was mostly suitable for younger viewers but times have changed and so has television. This is something everyone here needs to realize. TV today is not the same as it was back then and if you're naive enough to think it is or should be, you're living solely in the past. IMO, a responsible parent would have screened the TV movie on Sunday first before letting their younger children watch it (and I agree about not letting very young ones stay up until 11 PM to watch TV). If you neglected to screen the TV movie, then I don't think you have any right to come on to this board and start a tirade about how offensive you found it for your kids who were also watching with you.

Please understand, I am not attacking anyone on this board, I am simply trying to get the point across that there were definite warnings ahead of the premiere that this show was going to be aimed at an older audience and therefore it is a reasonable assumption that there very likely could have been "offensive" material in it. Was it necessary to have a lesbian character and a scene with Mike in bed with 2 women? Probably not, but I actually applaud NBC for being bold enough to make that leap and use the new Knight Rider to promote tolerance toward homosexuals. And so what if Mike was in bed with 2 women? Obviously those 2 women were there willingly and were just exploring another facet of human sexuality.

As a side note, I continue to find it funny that when I went to London for a week back in 2002 (my first time outside the U.S. not counting trips across the border to Mexico and Canada), I was amazed at how liberal that society was about having porn on broadcast TV after 8 PM and how there were nude advertisements on the streets. To the Brits, it was completely normal to see that stuff. One Brit that I spoke with said that the U.S. was one of the most conservative countries in the Western world and at first I didn't agree but the more that time goes on and I continue to see people here in the states get up in arms over (gasp!) homosexuals on TV or 2 women in bed with a single man, I have to agree that the U.S. is definitely not as liberal in most parts as it probably ought to be.

[prairiecrow]

I consider myself a "moral" person and I didn't have any problem whatsoever with either scene. I have a best friend who is a homosexual and I see nothing wrong with that. I don't view homosexuality as immoral in any way because it is something that has been shown to occur in other species and it has been documented to occur in human civilizations as far back as ancient Egypt. To me, homosexuality is a natural part of life. To each his (or her) own, I say. But I digress...

Was it necessary to have a lesbian character and a scene with Mike in bed with 2 women? Probably not, but I actually applaud NBC for being bold enough to make that leap and use the new Knight Rider to promote tolerance toward homosexuals. And so what if Mike was in bed with 2 women? Obviously those 2 women were there willingly and were just exploring another facet of human sexuality.

I agree. I also consider myself a very moral person, and I know several gay people, some of them in committed relationships. In fact, recently an acquaintance of mine (let's call him Glen) who had been with his partner (let's call him Steve) for seventeen years lost him to stomach cancer. It was very sudden -- three months from first symptoms to death -- and Glen is devastated.

But thankfully, even though they weren't legally married (gay marriage being legal up here in Canada), the hospital and everyone else concerned treated Glen in every way as Steve's spouse. He was fully involved in all decisions, permitted full access to Steve, and was able to be with him when he passed on. (There are parts of the world where that wouldn't be possible, and I thank whatever Gods may be Canada is civilized enough to be, for the most part, one of the places where it IS possible.) They were committed, faithful, and monogamous; they made a home together and shared all the joys and sorrows of life. In short, they were everything that any couple SHOULD be, at least according to the commonly accepted standards for a loving sexual partnership in our society.

Gay people are not sex-mad maniacs, pedophiles, or amoral perverted monsters. They are, in general, just like their heterosexual brethren. Yes, there are sexually promiscuous gay people, and some who like to be outrageous for the sake of being outrageous -- but the same can be said for many heterosexuals. I judge gay people the same way I judge straight people: as individuals, on a case-by-case basis.

Perhaps this is why the lesbian scene did not shock me. And I'll get down off my soapbox now.

[IceSage]

Actually, it was necessary if you actually paid attention to the plot. The beginning with Mike Tracer in bed with two girls, that was needed to show that, one... he's pimp just like Michael Knight was... And also, that he has problems sticking to women, as was explained later in the show.

The woman in the bed with the FBI agent shows that the FBI agent is either Bi or a Lesbian. Perhaps there's some mysterious background to it that isn't answered in the pilot movie. They can get into character depth later with it if they pick it up for a series.

Also, KITT's asking if he's gay made me laugh. It was a joke and shows the lack of understand for the the way culture and humans think. The original KITT was the exact same way. You have to understand, they're two different KITTs. (As far as we know, at least.)

So, please tell me how it was unnecessary again. Unless, of course, you have a problem with gay people. Because, that's what it appears to be. The original Knight Rider was rather extreme even back in the 80's. Well, when we look back at it now, it's not... it's rather dull and cheesy. But guns and violence? Selecting the gay scene and references and complaining about them saying it was unnecessary and taking offense to it means you obviously have a problem with the culture... or can't grasp that we're in 2008 and these types of things are actually more common than you'd think. Would you have had a problem with the scene if it was a man in the bed with the FBI agent? I'm assuming not. Our culture isn't perfect... In fact, that's what Knight Rider is trying to explain. The world is corrupt. It's diverse, and some things people just don't like... Some for the bad and some for the good. That's what the show is suppose to explain, and show to you how the world is. So, if you can't accept that the world is actually like that, that men sleep with men and women sleep with women in this day and age, then you have no understanding of life itself, or the setting of Knight Rider.

[lucid hysteria]

I don't view homosexuality as immoral in any way because it is something that has been shown to occur in other species and it has been documented to occur in human civilizations as far back as ancient Egypt

I applaud you for at least trying to justify your approval of homosexuality in this thread, as you are the first to do so (many people seem to accept it freely just because society says to); the reasoning you have listed, however, is extremely flawed.

First of all, yes, homosexuality occurs in other species (still as the exception, not the rule). Interestingly, though, animals also fight without conscience and murder indiscriminately. Some eat their own offspring. I have never heard anyone propose that we emulate those behaviors of our animal friends. And I should hope not - animals have no sense of right and wrong - they act purely out of a sense of instinct, self-preservation and gratification. Some of them will also gladly eat their own fecies. Clearly, if the animal population is to be our anchor of moral certainty, I think we're in much more trouble than if we trust the God of the Bible to set down absolute moral truth within a worldview that is clear and consistent, as well as meaningful (unlike the worldviews that justify homosexuality, wherein man is ultimately an accident of the universe with no need for questions of right and wrong), and above all, full of grace for our shortcomings.

Second, the fact that homosexuality has existed throughout the ages is also not helpful, as I could again list murder, rape, theft, adultery, dishonesty, and slavery as things that have all been quite common throughout history, and I am grateful that no one here would suggest that slavery is an acceptable "alternate lifestyle."

I understand your arguments, though, and as I said, I appreciate that you at least are trying. Most people, if they were honest, would just have to say "well, the media says it's ok, so it must be." And this is a travesty. But an understandable one, because more than at any point in recent history, we live in an age where there is a movement to reject all truth as illusion and all language as oppressive, and without truth, there can be no morality; there can only be "whatever feels right to me." And when whatever feels right to me conflicts with whatever feels right to someone else, the only thing that matters is who is more powerful.

So let me ask you, if morality is a healthy, acceptable and moral lifestyle, on what grounds is it so? I have written extensively about some of the reasons why I believe it is not in a thread which I will quote a little further down in this post, but ultimately, people who do not believe in any transcendant truth will not believe in any sort of moral standard... but then, why do they still think it wrong to kill or steal or lie or cheat on one's spouse? Why, for that matter, is it wrong to be "intolerant," if there is no moral standard to begin with?

I believe there is a standard, but it must be based on truth, and the only reliable source of transcendant truth I know is the Bible, which is a historically and archaeologically accurate collection of corroborating eyewitness accounts of supernatural events chronicling the creation, fall, and redemption of mankind through the blood of Christ.

People are, of course, free to disagree with this, and many do and may even suggest it is inappropriate to discuss in this thread, but since we are debating the "trashiness" of threesomes and lesbianism as it pertains to Knight Rider, I would be interested to know on what other foundation people base their sense of morality. I see that as completely pertinent to our discussion.

In any case, here is my post from another thread (apologies to the mods if this sort of quoting of an entire post makes this post too lengthy or violates some rule about repetition of posts - I will gladly replace it with a link if necessary)

3. Why do they need to push the gay agenda with the lesbian cop scene????

Can someone explain to me what the "gay agenda" is? Are they holed up in a mountain somewhere building a Cyberdyne computer to take over the world? Are they building an army of transforming robots to conquer mankind? People keep using this phrase over and over and it smacks of nothing but intolerance to me. So she's gay, big deal. She's still a good agent and helped Mike on the mission. Who cares who she sleeps with?

The "gay agenda" could be defined as the movement by a vocal minority to subvert the moral foundation of the vast majority of the world as well as the obvious laws of nature - no matter the cost - in order to excuse all manner of depraved and socially destructive behavior, using empty postmodern rhetoric (about moral relativity or gender as a "social construction") that could just as easily be (and must be, if we are being intellectually honest) used to justify ANY form of sexual deviancy, from polygamy to incest to pedophilia (for example, if we cannot say homosexuality is wrong because "truth is subjective" and "any restraint on sexuality is equal to oppression and narrowmindedness" (as some might suggest), then we cannot say that it would be wrong for a man to marry his sister, or even his sister's 6-year-old daughter, for the same reasons). The purpose of this "agenda" has proven to not only consist of the defense of the homosexual lifestyle, but indeed encompasses an attempt to overturn any standard for morality (particularly sexual morality, but all morality by extension), until the mere act of suggesting that there is some kind of standard becomes "intolerant," if not a "hate crime." This is why in many parts of the country, laws now exist to ensure that public schools have to bend over backward to accomodate a second grade child who may one week think he is a male, and the next think he is a female. If this is not the definition of insanity, I don't know what is.

This, of course, does not mean that homosexuals themselves are any worse people than anyone else (I have had several great teachers in college who were homosexual, and known homosexuals who were great businesspeople, artists, or otherwise simply very nice people, in general); it does not mean they should be ridiculed or harrassed or punished by the secular government, nor that they should be respected any less than any other human beings. But it means that the worldview they propogate is an especially dangerous one, and more and more it is being unfairly and unnecessarily forced on the rest of the world in the name of "tolerance."

Tolerance used to mean coexisting peacefully and respectfully with others despite disagreement; now, in order to be considered "tolerant" and moral, one must actually embrace and celebrate other peoples' beliefs, even to the extent that he or she values his or her own beliefs (unless the beliefs in question do not align with those of the academic elite or the secular media - then it's ok to mock and disregard them at will... such as the idea that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy). This leads to a madness wherein, if all beliefs and ideas are supposed to be equally true (as the Oprah-styled pseudo-philosophy of the age tries to tell us), NO idea can really be true, and the only thing that will matter, in the words of Dr. Voddie Baucham, is "who has sufficient power to exercise his or her will" (ironically, this is precisely the point of the "survival of the fittest" mentality that comes straight out of Darwinism which, when it has been taken to its logical conclusion, has led to some of the most heinous acts in history, from the serial killings of Jeffrey Dahmer to the attrocities of Adolf Hitler - both of whom justified their actions by the theory of evolution).

If you'll pardon my long-windedness, my point in all this is that, as Richard Weaver wrote in the 1940s, ideas have consequences. No idea exists in a vaccuum, as I have often heard it said, and as such, the many and varied subversive, revisionist philosophies pervading our culture (such as secular humanism, naturalism, philosophical pluralism, and other relativistic, "postmodern" worldviews) are not unrelated, and the homosexual movement is not under attack because homosexuality is some kind of harmless personal choice. People are opposed to the legitimation of homosexuality because the larger issue is upholding some sort of foundation for reason and morality in the world, without which we succumb to total anarchy and moral wilderness (social studies have long confirmed - sometimes even reluctantly - that societies begin to fall apart without traditional families at their core). As I've said, you can't endorse homosexuality without eventually having to applaud every other imagineable vice that someone feels he/she has a right to enjoy (without the inconvenience of an "intolerant" moral standard). And you cannot follow this path of logic very far before it becomes obvious that at the end of the road is a world without an adequate basis for law or reason, because every foundation and every shred of truth and meaning has been "overturned" by the whims of an increasingly self-centered, placated, and pleasure-seeking population.

I hope I have helped to clear up what people mean by the "gay agenda."

If it's any consolation, the worldview that says it's ok for a guy to wake up in bed with two women (in other words, the worldview that says we should use each other casually and indiscriminately for our own pleasure, throwing commitment and responsibility out the window, and that as long as it "feels good," there are no consequences) is just as damaging to the moral fiber of a civilization as the lesbian cop idea.

I'm hoping, however, that if the new Knight Rider goes to series, they will deal with these character flaws of Mike's in a way that we never got in the Eighties with Michael Knight, when it was even more acceptable to be a serial womanizer. And by that I mean, perhaps Mike will be changed from that lifestyle, which clearly doesn't bring him any happiness, and develop a real relationship with Sarah or someone else. It's good to have characters with flaws - arguably not so good to GLORIFY those flaws.

That being said, from what I hear (I missed the first half hour, but I have seen pictures and heard about it from various sources), the opening scenes of the show were very gratuitously sleazy, and for that I lost a lot of respect for the movie. I am thankful that Sarah seems to actually be a somewhat level-headed, potentially strong character (not the bimbo eye candy that they try to feed us in a lot of "entertainment" these days - think "Transformers," which I consider possibly more harmful than some more hardcore graphic material, because it's a more subtle shallowness that tries to come off as harmless, whereas the hardcore stuff pretty much never pretends to be wholesome). I like her better than Mike, as of right now, and I do think there is potential for at least decent character development in a series, though it's anybody's guess if the showrunners would actually handle it that way.

The lesbian bit seems especially offensive in this instance, however, because it is a shameless bid to be shocking (and also because "sex sells," and because lesbianism is no doubt used to sell extra well to adolescent and even immature adult males, for whom a situation like the one Mike Tracer wakes up then is the ultimate shallow fantasy) and to recklessly jump on the bandwagon to appease a culture that ignorantly celebrates rebellion against traditions without any standard of truth or reasoning to justify said rebellion. I tend to agree with the sentiment "Who cares who she sleeps with," because, after all, IT HAD NO BEARING ON THE PLOT whatsoever. As my wife just pointed out, "if it doesn't matter, then why show it?" The answer is precisely what I have outlined above - that it's not a necessarily plot element, but rather a cheap plea to be cool and hook more viewers on sex rather than on substance.

- lucid hysteria

PS - Other than this opening garbage and an anti-climactic lack of plot, I actually like the setup for a new show, and the Mustang has, to my surprise, grown on me quite a bit (including the great voice by Val Kilmer, who is not my favorite actor by far, heh) - this just goes to show that I need to listen to Mike Pajaro more often (which I should have already known from his years of KR wisdom) and not jump to conclusions. Hopefully the stories will be more exciting if the show gets picked up, and maybe the acting will improve, as well, heh.

[lucid hysteria]

In fact, recently an acquaintance of mine (let's call him Glen) who had been with his partner (let's call him Steve) for seventeen years lost him to stomach cancer. It was very sudden -- three months from first symptoms to death -- and Glen is devastated.

An important and eloquently stated point, prairiecow - especially to those who would express violence or hatred towards homosexuals.

Of course, the things you describe do not make homosexuality moral (and as you've no doubt surmised I don't believe it is in the least), but they are invaluable in reminding people that homosexuals ARE people and should be respected as people despite any disagreements about their lifestyle or worldview. One's sexual orientation does not make them any less of a person, any worse of a neighbor, etc.

But that doesn't mean that homosexuality is right or that we have to agree with them on sexual morality issues, either

A lot of times people want to pretend there's no difference - that disagreement is the same as hatred (again, this is the "tolerant" generation, where "intolerance" becomes the great "C-word" of the McCarthy catastrophe), and it is simply not so.

[prairiecrow]

So let me ask you, if morality is a healthy, acceptable and moral lifestyle, on what grounds is it so? I have written extensively about some of the reasons why I believe it is not in a thread which I will quote a little further down in this post, but ultimately, people who do not believe in any transcendant truth will not believe in any sort of moral standard... but then, why do they still think it wrong to kill or steal or lie or cheat on one's spouse? Why, for that matter, is it wrong to be "intolerant," if there is no moral standard to begin with?

I'm guessing that you're asking why homosexuailty is a healthy, acceptable, and moral lifestyle.

Let me start off by saying that I am not a Christian; my religion's primary moral tenet is that all actions that lead to no harm, or to minimal harm, are potentially morally acceptable actions. Furthermore, in one of our sacred texts our form of the Divine tells us: "Let My worship be in the heart that rejoices, for behold -- all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." By those moral standards (and whether you agree with them or not, they DO form a consistant and rather rigorous system of ethics), homosexual relations between two consenting and willing adults are perfectly acceptable. (Needless to say, actions such as bestiality and pedophilia are ruled out by this system of ethics, but since you're not familiar with our philosophy, I think it bears saying anyway.)

As far as I'm concerned, love is hard to find in this world, and I believe that homosexuality is a basic sexual orientation that some people are born with. With that in mind I see no reason to deny gay people the right to love, sexual pleasure, and companionship.

As for the lie/cheat/steal question... I believe that in the course of our evolution as social animals, human beings, like other animals, developed an inbuilt system of behaviors designed to ensure the stability of their social groups. Call it Sociology 101, if you like. Any behavior that upsets the social equilibrium by damaging relationships (betrayal of trust, for example) or by exterminating members of the society (murder) becomes unacceptable behavior. This self-reinforcing code is often encoded in religious systems. As proof that the Christian system is not unique in this respect, I will refer you to the Code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, both of which expouse similar moral systems.

And the idea that people who are not religious do not have morality is... *cough* well, let's just say I think it's a bit far fetched. I have known many non-religious people who possess quite advanced ethical sensibilities -- in some cases more advanced than those held by the religious, because they achieved those sensibilities through long investigation and critical thought.

This is turning into a very interesting discussion. I hope that it is acceptable to the moderators, since we are being civil in our agreement to disagree.

[Rockatteer]

With all this discussion about whether or not the new Knight Rider is appropriate for children, you'd think it could be debated like adults.

Thats the point. If it's not suitable for children, some of us wont be able to watch it!

[prairiecrow]

And by the way, lucid hysteria, thank you for your respectful and thoughtful response to my post about Glen and Steve. I see your point, and I agree that it is important to distinguish between disagreement and hatred.

[goldbug]

The double quoting is a bit confusing, so if I'm quoting the wrong person my apologies:

The "gay agenda" could be defined as the movement by a vocal minority to subvert the moral foundation of the vast majority of the world as well as the obvious laws of nature - no matter the cost - in order to excuse all manner of depraved and socially destructive behavior, using empty postmodern rhetoric (about moral relativity or gender as a "social construction") that could just as easily be (and must be, if we are being intellectually honest) used to justify ANY form of sexual deviancy, from polygamy to incest to pedophilia...

I read your entire section about the "gay agenda" about three times in disbelief. You say that homosexuals aren't evil etc. yet you equate their actions with those of pedophiles in terms of how "damaging" they are to society. The argument above is flawed for one simple reason: homosexuals (for the most part, like straight people) choose their partners and form loving relationships. Pedophiles and criminals force themselves upon others for various reasons be it for power or pure sociopathic tendencies. It is a gross assumption to think that just because one approves of homosexuality, they approve of incest or pedophilia. I know of not ONE gay person that would approve of such things.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread equating homosexuality with something that is a violation and illegal of another human being is an invalid argument. That's like saying "I approve of punching a guy out if he attacks me, so that means I approve of slashing his throat open too while he's down."

Also, being straight does not guarantee moral fiber. If it did, we wouldn't have a divorce rate over 50% and parents killing their own children.

I appreciate your efforts to explain "The Gay Agenda". I just happen to find its logic extremely flawed.

[seeker78]

my point that you clearly missed is it wasn't necessary.

As a parent, I was really looking forward to watching this with my kids. We have the old series on DVD and enjoy watching it together but this new Knightrider isn't suitable for them.

Well the violence, unsafe driving, etc., in the old series was more appropriate?

I’m not going to explain to my 5 year old what a homosexual, threesome or bi/lesbian is. They don’t need to know and we didn’t need to see this either.

Your 5 year old doesn't even understand what they are seeing. From that perspective they shouldn't see a man and a woman kissing, either. That's still sexuality. You would still have to explain to your 5 year old what it means to kiss someone.

In any case, as you can see from this link:

http://www.tvguidelines.org/ratings.asp

unless the show is rated TV-Y, you shouldn't be showing it to your 5 year old without viewing it first. I've never even kissed anyone, so I am obviously not a parent, but it seems to me that you should read about the TV rating system before you claim that a given show is intended to be viewed by 5 year olds. Shows like that would be Sesame Street, Barney, etc....and yes, your TV can be programmed to refuse to tune into such programs if you deem them inappropriate.

--Brian

[89 formula]

The argument above is flawed for one simple reason: homosexuals (for the most part, like straight people) choose their partners and form loving relationships.

Goldbug, I assume you're basing the above statement on personal opinions, not facts. A quick Google search on homosexual statistics will reveal the contrary. Just an FYI.

[Darknight]

I think we need to look at this with some more perspective. I believe the question never was about the rating of the show. Clearly, the rating indicates that the show is no longer intended to attract children, but I think that in itself is the complaint of many fans who fell in love with the original show. By Larson's own words, the real Knight Rider concept was essentially a gung-ho western with a flashy car and an honorable, if a bit hollow, hero. Knight Rider was never meant to be (and is not) about a selfish, sleazy protagonist like Mike Traceur. These attempts to draw comparisons between Traceur and Knight fall far off target. MK was an honorable character from the beginning--an honest, fearless cop, not some wannabe racer who gets in too deep with loan sharks. MK did associate with a number of females, but never romantically with more than one at a time, and even then, there were material reasons why MK might have been reluctant to settle down with one woman. As we saw with the "Stevie" saga, Michael had a strong desire to commit to one woman, but there was a constant conflict between that and his new life as MK. Not only could he not reveal his true identity to those from his life as ML (until he finally let Stevie know), but his work would have made a serious commitment virtually impossible. As tactful as Devon was during Michael's engagement and doomed wedding to Stevie, he was far from thrilled about the prospect of replacing Michael. He always pushed and pressured Michael to do a little more for the good of all, and that burden took a toll on Michael, but he soldiered on far longer that most of would.

Certainly, like Traceur, Michael was reluctant to join FLAG at first, but not for the same reasons as Traceur. MK had been rather tramatically remade in another man's image (one which saved his life, but nevertheless, without his permission), and simply dealing with being "reborn" would have taken some time for anyone to adjust, but he also had the burning desire to bring Tanya to justice. It's just that he originally intended to do so on his own, not with a semi-secret foundation and a talking car that looked to him like "Darth Vader's bathroom."

Conversely, I had the distinct impression that Mike Traceur hesitated not because he had his own plan to bring a specific criminal to justice, but because he was too self-absorbed at the moment.

All this said, I recognize that MT finally comes to realize the need to join FLAG, and it's true that if all right decisions were easy, then virtue would never be necessary. His decision to come around can only be a credit to his character, and reason for fan optimism. It is my belief, and my hope, that Traceur will continue to mature as a person and as a character as the show grows. My intention in this post was never to trash this "co-pilot" movie, but to illustrate some of the substance behind the concerns about a noticeable shift from the show's original moral charter. Some posters have focused on the sexual content, others on the violence, and I looked at the contrast of hero "types," but we all want to see the show stick to the central concept of fighting injustice without the formation of another government bureaucracy. The central theme of Knight Rider is about private citizens with the ability, (whether financial, intellectual, or physical) choosing freely to help others in need. The original show offered a nice trifecta with Wilton, Devon, and Michael all contributing from their areas of strength. As long as Knight Rider stays true to that concept, the show will work, but anything which distracts from that premise (through irrelevant side shows) undercuts the very spirit which captured the hearts of viewers from the pilot episode to now.

[PHOENIXZERO]

KFCreator, actually we've known all about the two girls scene and that Carrie Rivai's sexual orientation since mid-October as it was mentioned in AICN's script review.

Second, the fact that homosexuality has existed throughout the ages is also not helpful, as I could again list murder, rape, theft, adultery, dishonesty, and slavery as things that have all been quite common throughout history, and I am grateful that no one here would suggest that slavery is an acceptable "alternate lifestyle."

Wait... Did you just compare homosexuality to murder, rape, theft, adultery, dishonesty and slavery..... Oh **** you did!There's so many things wrong with this paragraph that I'm not even going to bother because then it'll just blow up into a bigger argument that I won't be able to ignore. Same reason as to why I'm also not going to comment certain other things either. But just... Wow....

[IceSage]

I think we need to look at this with some more perspective. I believe the question never was about the rating of the show. Clearly, the rating indicates that the show is no longer intended to attract children, but I think that in itself is the complaint of many fans who fell in love with the original show. By Larson's own words, the real Knight Rider concept was essentially a gung-ho western with a flashy car and an honorable, if a bit hollow, hero. Knight Rider was never meant to be (and is not) about a selfish, sleazy protagonist like Mike Traceur. These attempts to draw comparisons between Traceur and Knight fall far off target. MK was an honorable character from the beginning--an honest, fearless cop, not some wannabe racer who gets in too deep with loan sharks. MK did associate with a number of females, but never romantically with more than one at a time, and even then, there were material reasons why MK might have been reluctant to settle down with one woman. As we saw with the "Stevie" saga, Michael had a strong desire to commit to one woman, but there was a constant conflict between that and his new life as MK. Not only could he not reveal his true identity to those from his life as ML (until he finally let Stevie know), but his work would have made a serious commitment virtually impossible. As tactful as Devon was during Michael's engagement and doomed wedding to Stevie, he was far from thrilled about the prospect of replacing Michael. He always pushed and pressured Michael to do a little more for the good of all, and that burden took a toll on Michael, but he soldiered on far longer that most of would.

Certainly, like Traceur, Michael was reluctant to join FLAG at first, but not for the same reasons as Traceur. MK had been rather tramatically remade in another man's image (one which saved his life, but nevertheless, without his permission), and simply dealing with being "reborn" would have taken some time for anyone to adjust, but he also had the burning desire to bring Tanya to justice. It's just that he originally intended to do so on his own, not with a semi-secret foundation and a talking car that looked to him like "Darth Vader's bathroom."

Conversely, I had the distinct impression that Mike Traceur hesitated not because he had his own plan to bring a specific criminal to justice, but because he was too self-absorbed at the moment.

All this said, I recognize that MT finally comes to realize the need to join FLAG, and it's true that if all right decisions were easy, then virtue would never be necessary. His decision to come around can only be a credit to his character, and reason for fan optimism. It is my belief, and my hope, that Traceur will continue to mature as a person and as a character as the show grows. My intention in this post was never to trash this "co-pilot" movie, but to illustrate some of the substance behind the concerns about a noticeable shift from the show's original moral charter. Some posters have focused on the sexual content, others on the violence, and I looked at the contrast of hero "types," but we all want to see the show stick to the central concept of fighting injustice without the formation of another government bureaucracy. The central theme of Knight Rider is about private citizens with the ability, (whether financial, intellectual, or physical) choosing freely to help others in need. The original show offered a nice trifecta with Wilton, Devon, and Michael all contributing from their areas of strength. As long as Knight Rider stays true to that concept, the show will work, but anything which distracts from that premise (through irrelevant side shows) undercuts the very spirit which captured the hearts of viewers from the pilot episode to now.

All well said.

[Niggle Snoosh]

Imho although the scenes weren't altogether needed they did have a reason for being there.

The mike threesome scenes was added simply to show that he was a stud/ladiesman in one scene and get it over and done with. After all there isn't a series yet for them to show him winning the attentions of a different female character in each episode as what happened alot with the original series. Which in itself is not a great lesson in morality.

The lesbian scene, i expect was probably there simply to appeal to the male dynamic and get a series made... "Dude she's a lesbian, maybe we'll get to see tongues"

I can understand the gripe with wanting it to be suitable for family viewing and wanting kids to enjoy something (at least like) what you enjoyed in your childhood. However the movie was shown in an evening slot, surely not at a time considered to be peak family viewing. The there is the fact that the majority of people who were watching are grown up KR fans who may appreciate an little more light adult(ish) content

As for the homosexual comment from KITT it was simply a nieve comment from a complex AI that doesn't understand the current situation and leads with the only infomation it knows. It was meant as a cheap laugh, a nod to the bickering behaviour we used to love and expect in that sense i think it worked.

[knightofthephoenix]

I agree that I don't think it was necessary, or at the very least they could have made the same points without being so blatant.

Regardless of what demographic they are trying to target, this Knight Rider will continue to attract kids just like the first series did. As someone who was 4 when he started watching the original series, to them it's first and foremost about that cool talking super car!

I am NOT comparing it to Knight Rider, but do any of you remember when the Dukes of Hazzard premiered in 1979? It aired at 9pm and was racy. When the producers and cast realized their main audience was much younger, they toned it down to made it more viewable for all ages.

I just think it would be nice if new Knight Rider producers also considered this.

[maverik]

No, you're taken it out of context.

He was responding to an argument that tries to validate homosexuality as acceptable by referencing examples in animal kingdom and historically.

He was simply showing how that logic is flawed and gives examples of things that we can all agree is morally wrong using the same qualifiers.

KFCreator, actually we've known all about the two girls scene and that Carrie Rivai's sexual orientation since mid-October as it was mentioned in AICN's script review.

Second, the fact that homosexuality has existed throughout the ages is also not helpful, as I could again list murder, rape, theft, adultery, dishonesty, and slavery as things that have all been quite common throughout history, and I am grateful that no one here would suggest that slavery is an acceptable "alternate lifestyle."

Wait... Did you just compare homosexuality to murder, rape, theft, adultery, dishonesty and slavery..... Oh **** you did!There's so many things wrong with this paragraph that I'm not even going to bother because then it'll just blow up into a bigger argument that I won't be able to ignore. Same reason as to why I'm also not going to comment certain other things either. But just... Wow....

[PHOENIXZERO]

I was prepared to write a overly long response and have, but for the sake of civility and being a long boring read, I deleted it and chose to write this reply.

I will agree that it's not as simple and clear cut as comparing one animal to another as they do not have our higher brain functions that affect things such as reasoning (outside of a few exceptions) and many other things, most animals do not operate on anything more than pure instinct, an instinct where sex is for procreation (again, there are exceptions) and nothing else. Much of those instincts have been bred out of us over the course of tens of thousands of years. But homosexuality is completely different from the things listed as those are choices that can be made by humans, homosexuality is still biological. Attraction is not something you can turn off or alter/control no matter what certain people think and after all this time, it clearly can't be bred out of us either and no one should ever hope for that because the day it is that's the day humanity/society is truly screwed and not in the fun sense.

As for morality, that is different from person to person from society to society. Ones morals are no more right than those of someone else unless of course it's something to an extreme and by that I don't mean what someone one does to their self or things certain things between consenting adults.

As for the introduction scene with Carrie Ravai, the gender of the person in the bed was pointless in what was shown in the TV movie and I'm betting on her character ending up being bi-sexual.. The thing with Mike could have been done differently and probably better if given more time but neither offended me any more than Michael Knight's own exploits with the ladies did over 20 years ago. Nor does it mean your morals are better or worse than mine.

Ugh, even this is longer than I intended I tend to ramble as I'm sure everyone notices. It's even worse when I'm tired, hopefully this makes sense. Because I'm even losing focus just reading this mess.

[Duster]

Oh guys, come on... are you serious? I really don't understand what your problem is. Maybe it is because I have a lesbian in my family and that is nothing special for me, but what is the big deal? She is a lesbian, so what? They introduced the character of Carrie and one of the first things we learn about her is she obviously is attracted to women. No, this point doesn't occur in the pilot after this short scene. That doesn't mean it is unnecessary.
A pilot doesn't need to solve all plotpoints, character twists and what else. Cause if it would, there would be no point in exploring the characters further in a series. The point of a pilot is to introduce certain characters, situations and settings.

What the point behind the scene with Make and the two girls is, has been explained by IceSage:

Actually, it was necessary if you actually paid attention to the plot. The beginning with Mike Tracer in bed with two girls, that was needed to show that, one... he's pimp just like Michael Knight was... And also, that he has problems sticking to women, as was explained later in the show.

What some (not all!) of you are saying about homosexuals is really... ugh... I can't believe it.

[maverik]

This is way off my original point and not what i wanted to get into so my apologies for contributing to this "other" debate.

@prairiecrow
I do agree this is turning into an interesting debate and appreciate your level of thoughtfulness and intelligence in your responses.

For arguments sake, who or what defines what is moral and immoral?

We can’t point to:

A) society
B) the animal kingdom
C) religion

cannibalism, human sacrifice, pedophilia and bestiality were all accepted socially or religiously by various societies and religions at one point or another and, believe it or not, even now in modern times.

Despite how much I personally believe that the Holly Bible is absolute Truth (or you in your belief or ethic system) one side is not going to be able to change the others mind in the context of this conversation.

So to move the debate along what could we agree on as being common ground?

First let me get a clear definition of moral. To do this I’m using the merriam-webster’s dictionary and grabbing the relevant definitions:

moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

wrong: an injurious, unfair, or unjust act : action or conduct inflicting harm

We know we can’t reference previous examples A, B or C because it turns into a “relative argument” (even right and wrong some will argue is relative). So what can we definitively and unequivocally use as our control?:

How about the preservation of mankind?

What "evolutionary" purpose does homosexuality serve? HONESTLY?

stated bluntly: Homosexuality is anti-procreation.

Using just that criteria one can surmise that homosexuality is harmful and therefor immoral.

For those who really want to debate this I highly recommend researching the effects of homosexuality.

So let me ask you, if morality is a healthy, acceptable and moral lifestyle, on what grounds is it so? I have written extensively about some of the reasons why I believe it is not in a thread which I will quote a little further down in this post, but ultimately, people who do not believe in any transcendant truth will not believe in any sort of moral standard... but then, why do they still think it wrong to kill or steal or lie or cheat on one's spouse? Why, for that matter, is it wrong to be "intolerant," if there is no moral standard to begin with?

I'm guessing that you're asking why homosexuailty is a healthy, acceptable, and moral lifestyle.

Let me start off by saying that I am not a Christian; my religion's primary moral tenet is that all actions that lead to no harm, or to minimal harm, are potentially morally acceptable actions. Furthermore, in one of our sacred texts our form of the Divine tells us: "Let My worship be in the heart that rejoices, for behold -- all acts of love and pleasure are My rituals." By those moral standards (and whether you agree with them or not, they DO form a consistant and rather rigorous system of ethics), homosexual relations between two consenting and willing adults are perfectly acceptable. (Needless to say, actions such as bestiality and pedophilia are ruled out by this system of ethics, but since you're not familiar with our philosophy, I think it bears saying anyway.)

As far as I'm concerned, love is hard to find in this world, and I believe that homosexuality is a basic sexual orientation that some people are born with. With that in mind I see no reason to deny gay people the right to love, sexual pleasure, and companionship.

As for the lie/cheat/steal question... I believe that in the course of our evolution as social animals, human beings, like other animals, developed an inbuilt system of behaviors designed to ensure the stability of their social groups. Call it Sociology 101, if you like. Any behavior that upsets the social equilibrium by damaging relationships (betrayal of trust, for example) or by exterminating members of the society (murder) becomes unacceptable behavior. This self-reinforcing code is often encoded in religious systems. As proof that the Christian system is not unique in this respect, I will refer you to the Code of Hammurabi and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, both of which expouse similar moral systems.

And the idea that people who are not religious do not have morality is... *cough* well, let's just say I think it's a bit far fetched. I have known many non-religious people who possess quite advanced ethical sensibilities -- in some cases more advanced than those held by the religious, because they achieved those sensibilities through long investigation and critical thought.

This is turning into a very interesting discussion. I hope that it is acceptable to the moderators, since we are being civil in our agreement to disagree.

[neps]

The argument above is flawed for one simple reason: homosexuals (for the most part, like straight people) choose their partners and form loving relationships.

Goldbug, I assume you're basing the above statement on personal opinions, not facts. A quick Google search on homosexual statistics will reveal the contrary. Just an FYI.

For those who really want to debate this I highly recommend researching the effects of homosexuality.

I can't believe what I'm reading. Homosexuality is not a choice. It does not cause violence or any adverse affects anymore then Heterosexuality has. Everyone is entitled to love the way they feel is right. It isn't about evolutionary, people in same sex marriages have families, and care for children just like anyone else.

Having Mike in bed with two women showed that his character had been hurt by Sarah, and even he wasn't happy with the person he had become.

If Carrie had a man in her bed, you would have called her a whore for having a one night stand. If Carries character was a dude, you would have applauded him for having a hot chick in his bed.

It is unfair for us to cast stones at a character because of their sexual orientation. I'm frankly tired of this debate here, both sides have exhausted themselves, and no one is budging - so lets just end it.

Feel free to PM me privately if you have issues with me closing this.